Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[galax-arena]

I don't focus on stories about people like me because I KNOW what it's like to be me.

Well, it's not like I need to have my exact experiences represented on screen. And, I mean, I'm not white and if it's not the men's stories being told on screen, it's usually white women's stories. So it's not like I'm necessarily talking about shows featuring my doppelganger with my exact life story either. :D But I just don't think it's that weird that some people take into account whose stories are being told when choosing what media to consume.

 

Not that anyone here is necessarily arguing the following, but I hear people always saying, "But it's just television! It's just the movies! Why do you care?" As if pop culture doesn't influence and reflect society at large. It's all connected. It affects how we see ourselves and how we see others. Why do so many white people and non-black POC see black people as less than human criminals and thugs? Perhaps it has something to do with the often dehumanizing and stereotypical ways they are portrayed in the media. Why do so many straight women treat gay men as fashion accessories, like gay men only exist to be their Gay Best Friend who dispenses life wisdom and shopping advice? None of this exists in isolation. Not that pop culture is the only thing to blame, but it surely shares a degree of culpability in perpetuating and reinforcing certain stereotypes. 

 

And one stereotype is that women exist to revolve around men. Men and women are not on equal footing in the media, so I don't think it's that puzzling that some of us are largely opting out of media that continues pandering to this inequality. There's a reason why the Bechdel Test exists.

 

Disclaimer: Whenever I bring up the Bechdel Test, I feel compelled to point out that the test was never meant to be the final arbiter of what constitutes feminist-friendly media or not. It's simply a baseline standard that makes a point about female presence in overall media, because it says something that the test is so simple and easy, and yet so many movies and TV shows fail. It also says something that the reverse Bechdel Test is conversely practically impossible to fail.

Edited February 4, 2015 by galax-arena

[Bastet]

To me, the Bechdel test (as it originated, and as it has been extended to television in a more general sense) makes all the sense in the world as a baseline -- there are a ton of stories out there, and I'm only going to take the time to watch a small percentage of them, so in deciding which ones to start with, I'll toss out those that can't even be bothered to include at least two women who interact with each other in ways other than talking about men. 

 

If television featured a full array of female characters instead of several fully-realized characters and a whole lot of gender stereotypes, I'd be a lot more open to adopting the "I'll watch anything that interests me" position.  But so long as it continues to parade forth that collection of stereotypes as its primary output, I'll continue to reserve most of my viewing hours for shows that focus on women's stories in the way so much programming focuses on (white, straight) men's stories.  When there is more diversity in the programming, there will be more diversity in my viewing.   

[selkie]

One of my favorite female friendship stories on tv has been between Bev and Carol on Episodes. At the start of the series, Bev was inclined to write Carol off as another Hollywood flake, but over time they've become quite close and supportive of each other. Though it's a friendship that has typically massively failed the Bechtel test because so much of the on-screen bandwidth tends to involve discussions of Carol sleeping with another one of her male bosses even though she knows it's a bad idea. (Someone on the Episodes subforum described Carol as a baby bird who tends to imprint on whoever has the big office next door, and it fits.)

 

And now Carol's new boss is Helen with the usual results, though Helen treats Carol far better than the guys have. And we have Bev and Carol having the same sorts of conversations about relationships while hiking in the mountains that they've always had. The only thing that's changed is the gender of Carol's partner. So we suddenly go from Bechtel fail to Bechtel pass because it's now Helen instead of Merv? 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Not that anyone here is necessarily arguing the following, but I hear people always saying, "But it's just television! It's just the movies! Why do you care?" As if pop culture doesn't influence and reflect society at large. It's all connected. It affects how we see ourselves and how we see others. Why do so many white people and non-black POC see black people as less than human criminals and thugs? Perhaps it has something to do with the often dehumanizing and stereotypical ways they are portrayed in the media. Why do so many straight women treat gay men as fashion accessories, like gay men only exist to be their Gay Best Friend who dispenses life wisdom and shopping advice? None of this exists in isolation. Not that pop culture is the only thing to blame, but it surely shares a degree of culpability in perpetuating and reinforcing certain stereotypes..

 

IMO, those of "us" who watch television and have a brain in our head realize that TV exaggerates real life, particularly in sitcoms. No gay guy I've ever met behaves like Cameron Tucker, although some of them are borderline Mitchell Pritchetts. Is that a stereotype, and if so, does it have a basis in reality?

 

This is only slightly related, but years ago on SNL, Eddie Murphy did a skit where he "went undercover" as a white man, and he studied what it was like to be white by watching shows like Dynasty. I don't think I need to point out that Dynasty is just about the most exaggerated example of what it's like to be a white person you can imagine. Am I, being white, supposed to behave like someone on a dated night-time soap?

[Bastet]

Some people do act like some of the stereotypes presented on television, of course.  The stereotype itself is often less the problem than the fact the stereotypical characters constitute a large percentage of the characters of their group, whether it be women, black men, lesbians, Latino men, people with disabilities, etc. 

 

Straight, white males have a gazillion (slight exaggeration) representations on TV, so that any given white male character is a stereotype or caricature is no big deal.  When the day comes that everyone else is similarly represented, then individual characters won't be so problematic. 

Edited February 4, 2015 by Bastet

[Chaos Theory]

To me, the Bechdel test (as it originated, and as it has been extended to television in a more general sense) makes all the sense in the world as a baseline -- there are a ton of stories out there, and I'm only going to take the time to watch a small percentage of them, so in deciding which ones to start with, I'll toss out those that can't even be bothered to include at least two women who interact with each other in ways other than talking about men.

My problem with the Bechdel test is that it is often impossible or unrealistic. Sons of Anarchy was not a female heavy show (It had maybe two and they fought over the same man the son of one of them) but other women came and went and often brought a good deal of drama and interesting story lines. Other shows may fail the test during early episodes or seasons but pass it later Yes it is a good model for what to watch but there really is not tried and true model for what I watch. Yes women are good especially strong female leads....oh look a biker drama.....oh a gladiator story set in ancient Rome....hey a drama about a firefighter after 911. All these were wonderful shows that were dominated by men and quite possibly would have failed the test but had females that drove story lines and plots on more then one occasion and I would still recommend them all to anyone who asked.

Then again Supernatural not only failed the Bechdel test but had no women that lasted longer then a story arc. The show was always going to be about the brothers but come on a long term female or two wouldn't have hurt anything but the mega slash...oh wait nevermind

I guess having a model for what to watch isn't a bad thing as long as it is not too strict. Then again anything too strict unnerves me.

<---edited for clarity

Edited February 5, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Straight, white males have a gazillion (slight exaggeration) representations on TV, so that any given white male character is a stereotype or caricature is no big deal.  When the day comes that everyone else is similarly represented, then individual characters won't be so problematic.

 

Going to the Race and Ethnicity thread in the movie section for a reply.....

[Rick Kitchen]

I love Empire, and I'm white, ageing, and not a fan of rap music.  It's all in the characterizations and the stories.  As well as Taraji, of course.

[joelene]

My problem with the Bechdel test is that it is often impossible or unrealistic.

[...]

I guess having a model for what to watch isn't a bad thing as long as it is not too strict. Then again anything too strict unnerves me.

Some shows are likely not to pass the Bechdel test if they're, as you mention, set in male dominated environments. Shows like Sons of Anarchy and Spartacus can still be great shows. Ravenous and 12 Angry Men (for example) are great movies that don't need to pass the test because of their subjects. Not everything needs to pass, and I don't think anyone thinks that everything has to. But that doesn't make the test a problem. It's merely an indicator of just how much media doesn't include well-rounded female characters when there's really no reasons for them not to.

I'm not sure if you mean you think the Bechdel test is too strict or not, but I gotta say, it really, really isn't strict at all.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I'm not sure if you mean you think the Bechdel test is too strict or not, but I gotta say, it really, really isn't strict at all.

 

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the Bechdel test is where they measure whether or not women can interact without talking about men in any capacity. Not just as it refers to romantic relationships, but at all, period. If that's true, then if female characters are discussing a work situation and the subject of men comes up, they've failed the test. What exactly do you consider "not strict"?

[joelene]

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the Bechdel test is where they measure whether or not women can interact without talking about men in any capacity. Not just as it refers to romantic relationships, but at all, period. If that's true, then if female characters are discussing a work situation and the subject of men comes up, they've failed the test. What exactly do you consider "not strict"?

 

I don't think it's strict for a movie or tv show (where the plot don't revolve around romance or has an all male cast) to include two women sharing a scene talking about something other than men. One single scene. It doesn't have to be a lengthy scene. I baffles me that this is considered strict.

 

If two women share a scene where they discuss work and, say, one of them throws out an "And then Jeff in accounting told me about all these pencils going missing yada yada", well you can decide for yourself if you want to nitpick, throw your hands up in the air and shout "FAIL! DAMN YOU, JEFF IN ACCOUNTING!" I've no idea if that's considered a pass or a fail, but I think it's a pass because the conversation is about work, not Jeff in accounting, but point of the test isn't nitpicking, it's just to show how little presence women have compared to men and how that presence is utilized.

 

For clarity, to pass the Bechdel test there needs to be two (named) female characters sharing a scene where they talk to each other about something other than a man. 

 

ETA: If the work conversation turns into a man conversation half-way through it might even pass come to think of it. I'm not sure how that would be considered.

Edited February 5, 2015 by joelene

[galax-arena]

I don't think it's strict for a movie or tv show (where the plot don't revolve around romance or has an all male cast) to include two women sharing a scene talking about something other than men. One single scene. It doesn't have to be a lengthy scene. I baffles me that this is considered strict.

Exactly. And just try thinking of movies that fail the reverse Bechdel Test. Not very easy to do. Probably not impossible to think of some shows or movies that fit, but compared to the original Bechdel? No comparison, really.

 

One little scene. It's not supposed to be hard. That's the point. It's to show the plight of female presence in the media by highlighting how many movies and TV shows fail this one simple test. 

 

A movie or show that fails the Bechdel Test isn't necessarily a total shitshow that should be avoided at all costs because it obviously hates women. Like I said, it's not and was never meant to be the final arbiter of what constitutes feminist-friendly media. I always compare the Bechdel Test to the BMI. The BMI is pretty useless when it comes to telling you much about an individual person (because there are many reasons why someone might have a high BMI), but can tell you a lot about a general population. The Bechdel Test can be pretty useless when it comes to telling you much about an individual movie/show, but it can tell you a lot about the media in general. 

 

I'm pretty sure Disney's Mulan fails the Bechdel Test, but it's still my favorite Disney movie ever. 

[joelene]

And Run Lola Run is one of my favorite movies ever. Does it pass the Bechdel test? Nope.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

For clarity, to pass the Bechdel test there needs to be two (named) female characters sharing a scene where they talk to each other about something other than a man. 

 

ETA: If the work conversation turns into a man conversation half-way through it might even pass come to think of it. I'm not sure how that would be considered.

 

Fair enough, and in my defense, the purpose of the test was explained to me by a woman I know, and by her standards, your "Jeff in accounting" example would be a failure. Even to compare workplace experiences as it relates to men is a fail to some* people, so I suppose it depends on what your personal beliefs are. For my part, it seems like a false dichotomy to say that its either sexist or anti-feminist for women to discuss men. I work in an office environment, and a good percentage of my co-workers are married or in some kind of relationship. And it seems like the ones who aren't - both male and female - wish they were.

 

*I do not know how everyone applies the test, just that some people are far more stringent about the rules of it than others.

[joelene]

Fair enough, and in my defense, the purpose of the test was explained to me by a woman I know, and by her standards, your "Jeff in accounting" example would be a failure. Even to compare workplace experiences as it relates to men is a fail to some* people, so I suppose it depends on what your personal beliefs are.

*I do not know how everyone applies the test, just that some people are far more stringent about the rules of it than others.

Even if you are stringent about the rules I don't think the test is strict. Again, one tiny little scene.

 

 

For my part, it seems like a false dichotomy to say that its either sexist or anti-feminist for women to discuss men. I work in an office environment, and a good percentage of my co-workers are married or in some kind of relationship. And it seems like the ones who aren't - both male and female - wish they were.

See, nowhere does the test say that discussions about men are inherently sexist or anti-feminist. It's a generalisation about women's presence in media, but it's a generalisation that says a lot about sexism in that writers have such a difficult time or are unwilling to include women who can talk about something else with each other even for ten seconds.

 

Now, if someone says a work of fiction is sexist just because it doesn't pass the test then that's on them, not the test.

Edited February 5, 2015 by joelene

[topanga]

 

One little scene. It's not supposed to be hard. That's the point. It's to show the plight of female presence in the media by highlighting how many movies and TV shows fail this one simple test.

 

A movie or show that fails the Bechdel Test isn't necessarily a total shitshow that should be avoided at all costs because it obviously hates women. Like I said, it's not and was never meant to be the final arbiter of what constitutes feminist-friendly media. I always compare the Bechdel Test to the BMI. The BMI is pretty useless when it comes to telling you much about an individual person (because there are many reasons why someone might have a high BMI), but can tell you a lot about a general population.

Great point, galex-arena. Maybe that's one of the reasons stopped liking Scandal. In Season 1, and for part of Season 2, Olivia could have a conversation with Abby or Quinn or a female client to talk about work, politics, a political scandal, family, or some other topic that didn't involve romance. And now, in addition to the Shocking Craziness that Shonda insists on having every week, Olivia has been reduced to a character who only thinks about and acts based on her feelings for Fitz, Jake, and/or her father. It's sad, really.

 

--Even in the recent episode "Run," (which I Tivo'd by accident, I swear), when Olivia makes a decision to save herself from a scary situation, she only acts heroically after she fantasizes about Jake and Fitz rescuing her, and Abby tells her to stop fantasizing about those men and save herself. Which is a great message. But Olivia's mind needs a scene with someone telling her she relies on men too much in order for her to briefly stop relying on those men. So doesn't she still rely on them?

Edited February 5, 2015 by topanga

[Chaos Theory]

Maybe I explained "strict" wrong. I have recommended shows to friends and had them disregard the recommendations for the sole reason that it failed the Bechdel test. I have had shows recommend to me with large female casts that are just plain boring. Using a single thing to decide what you watch is what I mean as too strict a decider because honestly I have been genuinely surprised at the shows I enjoyed and saddened by the ones I didn't. Still can't figure out why I don't like Nashville.....which i think passes and although I love both Tina Fey and Amy Poehler I don't like either of their Comedies but then I am not a comedy person so that is an easy thing to understand.

I tend to use the do I like the actor/actress method myself. It's how I found Sons of Anarchy and Spartacus by following Katey Sagal and Lucy Lawless so if anyone cares that is my method. I stalk my favorite actresses to their next project and if I like it great. If I don't....there is always something else to watch.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Trini]

I'm pretty sure Disney's Mulan fails the Bechdel Test, but it's still my favorite Disney movie ever. 

 

No, it passes. In the beginning when she's getting ready with her mother and grandmother, and when she meets with the Matchmaker. (Yes, matchmaker, but they're not discussing men.) It's one of my favorites, too!

 

(Now, Jasmine in Aladdin, that fails completely.)

Edited February 8, 2015 by Trini

[joelene]

Maybe I explained "strict" wrong. I have recommended shows to friends and had them disregard the recommendations for the sole reason that it failed the Bechdel test. I have had shows recommend to me with large female casts that are just plain boring. Using a single thing to decide what you watch is what I mean as too strict a decider because honestly I have been genuinely surprised at the shows I enjoyed and saddened by the ones I didn't. Still can't figure out why I don't like Nashville.....which i think passes and although I love both Tina Fey and Amy Poehler I don't like either of their Comedies but then I am not a comedy person so that is an easy thing to understand.

I tend to use the do I like the actor/actress method myself. It's how I found Sons of Anarchy and Spartacus by following Katey Sagal and Lucy Lawless so if anyone cares that is my method. I stalk my favorite actresses to their next project and if I like it great. If I don't....there is always something else to watch.

Obviously it's ones own choice how you want to use the test, but I agree with you that I wouldn't use it to disregard a show (how do they even disregard your recommendations without watching the shows? Is there a site for failed Bechdel test shows?). If that's all you cared about you'd miss out on a lot of good stuff. Then again, maybe they're just sick of seeing men getting all the good stories and want to spend their valuable free time watching stories that are female inclusive. But, yeah, galaxy-arena said it best, it doesn't say anything about quality or if you're gonna like it.

I also generally use the "Do I like the actor/actress"-route, and reviews. I've never looked up if a show/movie passes the test before I watch it, but it can be very noticeable during a watch which can be depressing, but I mostly notice it when it's something that's not very good.

Edited February 5, 2015 by joelene

[Bastet]

For my part, it seems like a false dichotomy to say that its either sexist or anti-feminist for women to discuss men.

 

But that's not what the test says.

[Irlandesa]

Fair enough, and in my defense, the purpose of the test was explained to me by a woman I know, and by her standards, your "Jeff in accounting" example would be a failure.

I believe it is technically a failure but again, the test is about the sum of all the tests not one singular test applied to one work of art.  (Especially since there are some sexist movies that may pass the test.)  And while it may seem strict, it's really not. 

 

When you get to the point out of a 120 minute movie or a 13-22 hour/season television show and one little "Jeff from accounting" ruins the ability to pass the test, it's usually due to the fact that there are only 1 or 2 or 3, at most, scenes in which two named female characters interact so you're already struggling to make it work.

 

I don't base what I watch on whether or not it will pass the Bechdel test mainly because it's actually too easy to pass.  If someone wanted to make sure their work of art passed it, all they would have to do is have the (or one of the) female characters go into a coffee shop and have a short conversation with a barista whose name we happen to know. 

 

But I don't blame someone for making it part of their criteria because it is pretty simple to pass.  For me, I need good female characters who are given a point of view even if the show is considered "good" without one.  I'm just tired of so many shows where women solely exist to service the plot of the male main characters even if the show is considered a "good" show.  And if it's on premium cable, they're nude.  I'm tired of shows where there's one female character and five male characters. (You're less likely to have female characters.)  I'm tired of shows that can't show women being professional at work.  (Women are far less likely to be shown at work.) 

[myril]

When you get to the point out of a 120 minute movie or a 13-22 hour/season television show and one little "Jeff from accounting" ruins the ability to pass the test, it's usually due to the fact that there are only 1 or 2 or 3, at most, scenes in which two named female characters interact so you're already struggling to make it work.

 

I don't base what I watch on whether or not it will pass the Bechdel test mainly because it's actually too easy to pass.  If someone wanted to make sure their work of art passed it, all they would have to do is have the (or one of the) female characters go into a coffee shop and have a short conversation with a barista whose name we happen to know. 

 

 

 

The Bechdel-Test is no judgement about being a high or low quality film or TV show, it's just a very simple and easy to pass criteria, giving an idea how women are treated on screen. If for example two or more women in a scene talk about an accountant, who happens to be a man, and the subject is not about the accountant being a man, in my view the test is pretty much passed. If they talk about a man who happens to be the accountant, that is not a pass. And TV shows have plenty of hours and scenes to include at least one scene able to pass the test. It's about if women's lives on a show merely revolve around the men, are there only to serve their plots, barely have anything beyond them, or if women have a life on their own. A few simple scenes passing the Bechdel-Test are no guarantee for the latter, but they are a start.

 

 

But I don't blame someone for making it part of their criteria because it is pretty simple to pass.  For me, I need good female characters who are given a point of view even if the show is considered "good" without one.  I'm just tired of so many shows where women solely exist to service the plot of the male main characters even if the show is considered a "good" show.  And if it's on premium cable, they're nude.  I'm tired of shows where there's one female character and five male characters. (You're less likely to have female characters.)  I'm tired of shows that can't show women being professional at work.  (Women are far less likely to be shown at work.)

 

Agreed. There are plenty of good and bad shows centering around some straight, white male "hero" (or heroes, protagonists) to choose from. I am not the least bit worried that their perspective is about to vanish any time near in the future or ever. But there are so many more possible perspective to tell stories from and I gladly give those perspectives a chance, prefer them for the time being, even if possibly missing out on a few well written shows that way.

[Miss Dee]

May I ask a question about the Bechdel test? Does a show pass if it includes at least one scene where two women characters don't talk about a man, or does it fail if it includes at least one scene where two women characters do talk about a man? I've heard it spoken of both ways. I agree the first way makes it ridiculously easy to pass, but I don't think a show should be required to pass in the latter way to be considered a high quality show for women.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Miss Dee

[joelene]

A show/movie/comic pass if there is one scene were two female characters talks about something other than a man. So, yeah, it should be super easy to pass.

Edited February 8, 2015 by joelene

[Bastet]

Exactly, and how very low that bar is was what made Bechdel's point about the representation of women in film -- the test should have about a 99% pass rate (as it does if one checks to see if a film contains at least two named male characters, who have at least one conversation with each other, that is about something other than a woman), yet it doesn't.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Bastet

[Actionmage]

Here's a link to the Wiki entry, which has the original strip about the Bechdel test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test

 

One thing about the Mako Mori test mentioned in that Wiki entry is that first hurdle: "The Mako Mori test is passed if the movie has: a) at least one female character..."   That seems to be lowering expectations, to me. From however many gals in your film, two get to talk about something other than a guy, to one gal in your movie gets a story.

 

If I am missing the point, I apologize.  I do understand how having a strong story for at least one female character is good. It's the qualifier "at least" that I get hung up on.  Are writers finding it so difficult to write women characters that writing one is something we should start giving cookies out for? I know folks here don't think that, but it feels that way when I read about why there seems to be a lack of female characters of various types and ethnicities.   

Edited February 10, 2015 by Actionmage

[galax-arena]

I've never been a fan of the Mako Mori Test. IMO it was a test devised by a butthurt fandom that completely misinterpreted what the Bechdel Test was for. Even when I thought that Mulan failed the test - before a poster here set me straight, heh - I wasn't running around making up my own Mulan Test, because I got what the Bechdel was and wasn't supposed to measure. 

 

Plus, the Mako Mori Test itself is pretty shitty because its standards are so subjective and overarching. The beauty of the Bechdel Test is that it's so simple. Two women have to have one single conversation that's not about a man. That's it. The standards are objective. Look at the Mako Mori Test by contrast: "The Mako Mori test is passed if the movie has: a) at least one female character; b) who gets her own narrative arc; c) that is not about supporting a man’s story." Re: B and C - what to the what now? How do you measure whether the character gets her own narrative arc? And whether it's about supporting a man's story? The test is too complicated. It's based on subjective interpretations of the film. 

 

 

It's the qualifier "at least" that I get hung up on.

While ordinarily I wouldn't have cared, I kinda rolled my eyes at that too, because I think it was so that the Pacific Rim fandom could cover its bases; one of the things that the movie was criticized for was how Mako was pretty much the only female character of any substance. So of course the test took that into consideration so that their girl could pass. People REALLY didn't like that their precious movie failed the Bechdel test, lmao. 

Edited February 10, 2015 by galax-arena

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Plus, the Mako Mori Test itself is pretty shitty because its standards are so subjective and overarching. The beauty of the Bechdel Test is that it's so simple. Two women have to have one single conversation that's not about a man. That's it. The standards are objective. Look at the Mako Mori Test by contrast: "The Mako Mori test is passed if the movie has: a) at least one female character; b) who gets her own narrative arc; c) that is not about supporting a man’s story." Re: B and C - what to the what now? How do you measure whether the character gets her own narrative arc? And whether it's about supporting a man's story? The test is too complicated. It's based on subjective interpretations of the film. 

 

But isn't the Bechdel Test also subjective? As I noted upthread, depending on whose standards you're using, any mention of men at all is a failure, even as it relates to a work situation. Just comparing salaries between male and female co-workers could, I suppose, also be a failure, if the way you use the test is so strict/stringent that female characters must only talk about other women when they're having a conversation. Admittedly, I could be missing the point, but I'm still trying to figure out what makes media fail and what makes it pass, and if you're allowed to use your own standards or if there's some "universal" way of applying the test.

 

In slightly related news, now I want to see Pacific Rim. :-P

[joelene]

[...] any mention of men at all is a failure, even as it relates to a work situation. [...] if the way you use the test is so strict/stringent that female characters must only talk about other women when they're having a conversation.

I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse at this point but, again, the women can mention/talk about men throughout pretty much every conversation. We're talking about just one scene where they are able to talk about anything else (and why must the only other topic be about women? People can talk about other things...).

This is not unreasonable, especially when you consider how many conversations male characters manage to have that aren't about or include women.

Edited February 11, 2015 by joelene

[paulvdb]

Of course. Women can also talk about their hair or make-up or clothes or shopping. That would pass the test.

[galax-arena]

But isn't the Bechdel Test also subjective?

No. All the test says is that a woman must have one single conversation with another woman that's not about a man. I don't see how that's not an objective standard. You can watch a movie and should be able to quickly figure out whether the movie passes or not. The problem is when people insist that talking about a minor male coworker in a work (not romantic) capacity shouldn't really count as failure because it's not like the female character's life actually revolves around the male coworker, she's not romantically interested in him, etc. They're erroneously trying to insert subjectivity (i.e. the quality of the conversation) into the test because they keep believing that the test is some final arbiter of quality (like how many times do I have to say that this isn't the case?). But the Bechdel doesn't care if the man in question is a love interest or an evil warlord or a male coworker or the milkman. Does the movie not have a single conversation where men don't factor at all in the equation? Then it fails, period. And that's easy enough to determine, which isn't true for a test where the benchmark is determining the female character's "narrative arc." 

 

 

Women can also talk about their hair or make-up or clothes or shopping. That would pass the test.

This! You could have a movie with nothing but women, and all they do is sit around and act like catty/bitchy stereotypes who only care about dragging other women down and doing their nails and buying designer clothes, and it'd pass. It'd probably also be a shitty movie on the feminism scale. 

 

ETA: OKAY, moving away from the Bechdel Test, Parks and Recs took on MRAs in their last ep. Cackling.

Edited February 11, 2015 by galax-arena

[selkie]

No. All the test says is that a woman must have one single conversation with another woman that's not about a man. I don't see how that's not an objective standard. You can watch a movie and should be able to quickly figure out whether the movie passes or not. The problem is when people insist that talking about a minor male coworker in a work (not romantic) capacity shouldn't really count as failure because it's not like the female character's life actually revolves around the male coworker, she's not romantically interested in him, etc. They're erroneously trying to insert subjectivity (i.e. the quality of the conversation) into the test because they keep believing that the test is some final arbiter of quality (like how many times do I have to say that this isn't the case?). But the Bechdel doesn't care if the man in question is a love interest or an evil warlord or a male coworker or the milkman. Does the movie not have a single conversation where men don't factor at all in the equation? Then it fails, period. And that's easy enough to determine, which isn't true for a test where the benchmark is determining the female character's "narrative arc." 

 

 

This! You could have a movie with nothing but women, and all they do is sit around and act like catty/bitchy stereotypes who only care about dragging other women down and doing their nails and buying designer clothes, and it'd pass. It'd probably also be a shitty movie on the feminism scale. 

 

Episodes had one where Helen and Carol try to figure out whether their coworker Myrna the mumbler is pregnant or just getting fat. I'd so rather hear about Carol and Bev talking about the best way for Bev to pitch what's probably a $30 million joint project with Sean to a male studio head.

[Actionmage]

Episodes had one where Helen and Carol try to figure out whether their coworker Myrna the mumbler is pregnant or just getting fat. I'd so rather hear about Carol and Bev talking about the best way for Bev to pitch what's probably a $30 million joint project with Sean to a male studio head.

 

Why couldn't the hypothetical pitch be made to a Sherry Lansing-type studio head?

 

Sherry Lansing headed a movie studio, so there is no reason not to have fictional ones.  We haven't had an actual female president or vice president, but they are all over TV.  It is a lack of originality on writers and those folks making final decisions.

 

No one is saying that the females can only be one or another thing. The characters, though, are being written as if they can only be one or two things no matter their importance to the TV show they inhabit. Just because someone got a script accepted and made that had a multi-dimensional role for a female? Doesn't mean there doesn't have to be more.

 

This isn't aimed at you, in particular, selkie, because I understand what you meant in that reply. If the female characters can only tear down/demean/be bitches, I'd rather not have them talk either. That's the thing: they don't have to.

[joelene]

Why couldn't the hypothetical pitch be made to a Sherry Lansing-type studio head?

For what it's worth, they pitched to three network heads (TV pitch, not movie pitch) in the end, two of which were women, and the only sensible out of the three was one of the women (also lesbian). Sean and Bev's American agent is also a woman.

Episodes does well with its female characters.

Edited February 12, 2015 by joelene

[Niuxita]

 

 

One thing about the Mako Mori test mentioned in that Wiki entry is that first hurdle: "The Mako Mori test is passed if the movie has: a) at least one female character..."   That seems to be lowering expectations, to me. From however many gals in your film, two get to talk about something other than a guy, to one gal in your movie gets a story.

If I am missing the point, I apologize.  I do understand how having a strong story for at least one female character is good. It's the qualifier "at least" that I get hung up on.  Are writers finding it so difficult to write women characters that writing one is something we should start giving cookies out for? I know folks here don't think that, but it feels that way when I read about why there seems to be a lack of female characters of various types and ethnicities.

 

Yes, THANK YOU. The whole "Mako Mori Test" nonsense bugged the SHIT out of me when it first came out because you had a bunch of so-called feminists shitting all over the Bechdel Test for "lowering the bar" or "not being enough" or whatever their excuse was, and then turning around with being perfectly content with a movie with only ONE female character who actually had any lines in a movie full of different/complex male characters, as if that was the most groundbreaking thing, even though the film was set I don't recall how many years into the future but basically in a time where it would have made sense to portray society as having evolved enough for women to be a lot more involved in the fight. I completely agree with galax-arena that it was nothing but grasping at straws because people wanted to tout the movie as being so "progressive" and that argument was undermined when someone pointed out that, hey, what was up with the lack of women. Which is ridiculous, because you can love something that isn't that great with the female representation and it doesn't make your love for it any less valid, nor will it make the Feminist Police come and get you. But I found that movie seriously overrated and it made me angry more than anything else, so maybe I'm missing something crucial as to why having only one female character in a movie filled with dudes is obviously more progressive and important than showing that two women can interact with each other in a context completely separate from men.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Niuxita

[magicdog]

I was torn as to where to post this - here or the thread about shows that don't hold up over time.

 

I was watching an episode of Father Knows Best.  In it, Betty Anderson thinks she's found her calling in a career - as an engineer (structural I think, the episode was a bit vague).  Obviously she gets ridiculed by her brother Bud and father since she's not interested in something more conventional at the time (such as secretarial work).  I understand that the show aired in the 50s so gender divisions were a lot more specific then, and it would have been normal in some circles to find it odd for a girly girl like Betty to be inspired to work in the engineering field.  I also found it odd how her father didn't stand up for her.  There is scene when Betty goes out in the field with an all male engineering crew and is treated rather shabbily by them.  She goes home to cry.  The boy she was working with was romantically interested in her and goes to her home to apologize and ask her out.  He has a chat with her father and talks about how he likes his women feminine, etc.  Her father, much to my surprise (or perhaps due to being used to typical sitcom conventions regarding this subject) doesn't defend her decision (if Betty wants to be an engineer, respect that!) but rather ends up agreeing with the potential suitor.  By then, Betty is back in a dress (having worn jeans and an old men's shirt to the field) and becomes receptive to the guy's romantic intents.

 

Despite me being rather old fashioned, the episode left me cold.

 

Interesting when you consider that after "Father Knows Best", Elinor Donohue, who played Betty, would move to TAGS to play a female pharmacist (another rarity, but the character got a lot more respect during her time on that show).

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Interesting when you consider that after "Father Knows Best", Elinor Donohue, who played Betty, would move to TAGS to play a female pharmacist (another rarity, but the character got a lot more respect during her time on that show).

 

Years after her time on The Andy Griffith Show, Elinor Donohue would appear in an episode of The Golden Girls, where she portrayed Katherine, the fiancee of Dorothy's ex-husband Stan. Without getting into all the details, it turned out that Katherine was a career woman for a long time, and she had never been married before. Without knowing who Dorothy was, she said that she wanted to be a good wife to Stan, that she'd never been married to anything but her career previously. She only appears in that one episode, and I felt bad for her later, because Katherine ends up divorcing Stan for the same reason Dorothy did, he was unfaithful to her, and she just seemed so hopeful and excited about the future the day of the wedding.

[MaryMitch]

It's amazing how things have changed, even since the 70s when I was in engineering school. There were only 3 women in my class, and in my very first class the instructor declared that he didn't believe women should be engineers but he had to accept it. I went back to my dorm room and cried.

 

When I tell young women that story, they are stunned and indignant (and I should hope so!), but I think in a way they don't believe me because it is so outside their experience.

 

This was in the SEVENTIES. I can't imagine what the experience of a young woman in the 50s would be.

[Actionmage]

Mary Mitch, I saw that episode a few months back and felt like you did, except I'm not an engineer. I could not believe that "Father" would refuse to stand up for Betty, especially as she was the Good Daughter. I thought nothing was more important than to be a Good Daughter and here Betty was, with that not even helping her!  After being raised as a Good Daughter, then seeing this episode, I was left wondering why any female bothered with being labeled "Good". Yes, it supposedly made the wheels of society go smoother, but for what? Getting Green Stamps?  The good parking spot?

 

I am so sorry that your instructor was a caveman, as well. I have no words. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Billy Gray, who played Bud on Father Knows Best, had this to say about the show:

 

"I wish there was some way I could tell kids not to believe it - the dialogue, the situations, the characters - they were all totally false. The show did everybody a disservice. The girls were always trained to use their feminine wiles, to pretend to be helpless to attract men. The show contributed to a lot of the problems between men and women that we see today....I think we were all well motivated, but what we did was run a hoax. Father Knows Best  purported to be a reasonable facsimile of life. And the bad thing is that the model is so deceitful. It usually revolved around not wanting to tell the truth, either out of embarrassment, or not wanting to hurt someone....If I could say anything to make up for all the years I lent myself to that kind of bullshit, it would be: *You* Know Best."

[Bella]

I also took an engineering class in the 1970s. It was 3 women and 72 men in a lecture-style class. And I can say that Mary Mitch's experience was typical for that era. If her instructor was a cave man, then almost all of them were, though one of the two leads in my course was quite taken with the fact that I could write (feeding into the stereotype that most engineers can't, I guess). I knew two women who got engineering degrees but soon left the field because the harassment was too great in the workplace. At one point, when I was a transportation consultant for a few years, I felt like I put on a suit of armor every morning when I entered the office. It was rough.

 

It boggles my mind that younger women don't know that this kind of thing was so recent. And yet I suppose that despite the lack of progress in some areas and the backsliding in others, the fact that many younger women don't have these same experiences means that we have indeed had some positive changes stick.

[DeLurker]

Watch reruns of Sports Night when I am coming alive in the morning. I realized today that even the woman who is supposed to be super sexy does not have implants. All the women in the show are attractive, but it seems like today an un-augmented woman is never going to be cast as desirable. That is really sad.

[Niuxita]

 

All the women in the show are attractive, but it seems like today an un-augmented woman is never going to be cast as desirable. That is really sad.

 

Can you give examples of women cast in "desirable woman" roles today that are "augmented," as you say? My perception has always been that, in order to be considered desirable in Hollywood, you have to be pretty, white(/blonde), stick-thin, and young. In all the TV I've watched, I've never seen an obvious bias towards women with surgical enhancements (save for older actresses who get Botox for their faces).

[Actionmage]

http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/wga-study-declines-for-female-and-minority-tv-writers-across-the-board-20150304

 

How are folks okay at a third of writers being pulled from half the population and less than 20% of POC ( I am guessing of either gender) being pulled to write? 

[selkie]

Watch reruns of Sports Night when I am coming alive in the morning. I realized today that even the woman who is supposed to be super sexy does not have implants. All the women in the show are attractive, but it seems like today an un-augmented woman is never going to be cast as desirable. That is really sad.

 

I'm blanking on the exact shows now, but there are some period shows on HBO, Showtime, and the like where you get to the naked sex scene and it's like, "Yep, casting call must have said-attractive woman, no fake boobs because they were really trying to go for 1930s or 1870s authentic-looking."

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Also, Mad Men airs on AMC, and although its debatable whether or not Christina Hendricks' wardrobe was a size too small in the beginning, I don't think she's been augmented.

[DeLurker]

Can you give examples of women cast in "desirable woman" roles today that are "augmented," as you say? My perception has always been that, in order to be considered desirable in Hollywood, you have to be pretty, white(/blonde), stick-thin, and young. In all the TV I've watched, I've never seen an obvious bias towards women with surgical enhancements (save for older actresses who get Botox for their faces).

Kaley Cuaco (however you spell her name) has been open about it.  I believe Adrianne Palicki, Haydenne Panettiere, Courtney Cox and Sarah Jessica Parker also have implants.

[Actionmage]

I've tried to come up with a list of size 10 white actresses* who get regular work,

 

(selkie--June 12, 2014; page 1)

Here's my try:

 

1. Kathy Najimy                 

2. Kirstie Alley

3.Kathy Bates

4.Margo Martindale

5. Rebel Wilson

6.Dot-Marie Jones

7.Melissa Peterman

8. Melissa McCarthy

9.Conchata Ferrell

10. Doris Roberts

 

Now, most of this list are women over the current Age of Hotness, per casting and stories centered on them. I hesitated at putting Ms. Peterson on because she is still "curvy" and not exactly what a lot of folks think of as "plus sized", though I am sure there are folks who have been horrid to her. Most of these women have played the friend of or the mom/other relative to the lead. Then again, I enjoyed Mildred more than Laura Holt on Remington Steele. ( I liked both, but Laura was so prissy a lot of the time.)

 

This is not exhaustive. Another name I considered: Marissa Jaret Winokur. Other names I thought of ( Rosanne, Sara Rue) have slimmed down. Still the others I thought of I had to reject because they were WOC. 

 

I still can't get over how Mae Whitman is supposed to be the "ugly, fat" person in any movie. (I refuse to type the title.)

Edited March 10, 2015 by Actionmage

[ErinW]

For our list of working size 10 ladies: we'll have to see how regular her work is post-Fargo, but she's in my head because I'm catching up on The Mindy Project where she did a two-episode arc (where a man initially rejects her based on her appearance, then later realizes she is awesome): Allison Tolman.

 

Also, before the Golden Globes (where she was up for Best Actress in a Mini-Series) she Tweeted this: 

 

My Golden Globes prep includes a revolutionary diet called they make dresses in different sizes. #HitTheGymButHaveACookieToo

 

 

And she's a racial minority, so she doesn't officially "count," but I think it's always worth mentioning that Mindy Kaling has so far managed to resist the slimdown that successful big-body types seem to ultimately resort to (always for their "health"). Besides that, her character has incredible confidence in her physical appearance, as well she should because they dress her fabulously and she is really naturally beautiful.

 

To hit some older topics:

 

This made me think of another pet peeve as well with women and crime shows. I am so tired of seeing women who are on the field and are either chasing down suspects or gathering evidence and are doing it all in high heals, with long hair blowing in their faces, and in some cases wearing clothing that is really inappropriate.

 

Fine exception: Olivia Dunham on Fringe! Wore respectable (if slim-fitting) pantsuits, FLAT SHOES, and had her hair pulled back more often than not. The plotlines maneuvered her into her underwear once in awhile, but you know, baby steps.

 

Finally, the biological clock discussion (re: gentle reminders to women not to wait too long to have their children) reminded me of this bit on SNL's Weekend Update [links to video] which was surely written by Tina Fey.

 

 

Tina: According to author Sylvia Hewlett, career women shouldn't wait to have babies because our fertility takes a steep drop-off after age 27. And Sylvia's right; I definitely should have had a baby when I was 27, living in Chicago over a biker bar, pulling down a cool $12,000 a year. That would have worked out great.

 

[DeLurker]

We've had a lot of weather to talk about recently (Houston area) and so the meteorologists are getting tons more tv time than typical.  Since last nights rain and all the related flooding, they've been on air almost nonstop.

 

A male meteorologist can be any age and of average looks, even a tad schlubby looking.

 

A female meteorologist must be younger, attractive, and on the slender side.